' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Sh. Muhammad Yasin, Ex-Rural Development Worker/Secretary, Union Council No, 149, Shah Yakka, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Okara and the Director, Local Government and Rural Development Lahore Division, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 12th November, 1983 be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service, w. e. f. 12th November, 1983 with full back benefits of pay and allowances, etc. 3, Brief facts of the case are that the appellant started service as Secretary, Union Council, w. e. f.
16th September, 1960 and was absorbed in Government service, w. e. f. 1st November, 1973. In the year 1979 the appellant was suspended vide order, dated 13th August, 1979. However, the appellant has re-instated in service with a warning issued on 29th March, 1980. The appellant was again suspended on 23rd June, 1980 and was proceeded against on the basis of two charges :-
(a) that he used to send complaints against his immediate officers ; and
(b) that he lodged baseless complaints against Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Project Manager.
' These charges were not proved against the appellant and the appellant was exonerated.
However, a warning was given to him and his pay for the intervening period was withheld. The appellant filed an appeal No, 455/1940 of 1982, before this Tribunal against that order which was accepted by Judgment, dated 14th February, 1983. The warning as well as the withholding of pay of the suspension period was set aside. The contention of the appellant has been that the departmental authorities had been vindictive against him as he had been pointing out the irregularities of the Officers of the Local Government Department to the concerned higher superiors. The glaring instance in this case has been that the appellant was suspended for the third time vide order, dated 11th December, 1980. A charge-sheet was served on 27th December, 1980.
But subsequently the appellant was re-instated with full benefits by order, dated 27th January, 1981.
The appellant was so sick with maltreatment of the Departmental Authorities that he even tendered his resignation on 5th January, 1981, in which he enumerated the various vindictive actions which had been taken against him from time to time but the resignation remained unattended. The appellant was dismissed from service by the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Sahiwal, vide order, dated 10th March, 1982. The appellant filed an appeal before the appellate Authority which was accepted on 28th August, 1982 on the ground that the appellant was not given personal hearing. However, the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Sahiwal again dismissed him vide order, dated 16th September, 1982. Against this order, the appellant again filed an appeal to the Director, Local Government and Rural Development Department, which was accepted and it was held that the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Shaiwal had no jurisdiction in the matter because of the fact that Okara had been declared a District and the case fell in the jurisdiction of the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Okara. Accordingly the appellate Authority remanded the case to the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rurul Development, Okara to take necessary proceedings against him, The Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Okara, issued a charge-sheet to the appellant. A copy ,of which is at Annexure Z/2 in which three allegations were levelled against him. An enquiry was held by the Project Manager, Rural Development Markaz, Depalpur who held that Charges Nos, 1 and 2 stood proved against the appellant. As regards Charge No, 3, it was held by him that no record has been produced by the prosecution and as such it was not possible for him to give findings. On receipt of that report, a show-cause notice/notice of personal hearing dated 20th October, 1983 was issued to the appellant by the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Okara on the basis of the Charges Nos, 1 and 2. The appellant submitted his written defence on 6th November, 1983. Ultimately the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Okara passed an order, dated 12th November, 1983 whereby he held that the appellant is not fit for retaining in Government service and dismissed the appellant from service, w. e. f. 12th November, 1983. The appellant filed a departmental appeal, dated 17th November. 1983 to the Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore Division, Lahore. As no decision was taken on his appeal within a period of 90 days, the appellant filed the present appeal on 8th March, 1984 i,e,, within 30 days after expiry of statutory period of 90 days. At the time of arguments the learned District Attorney has pointed out that the aforesaid appeal. Dated 17th November, 1983 of the appellant has been decided and dismissed by the appellate authority respondent No, 2, vide his order, dated 13th August, 1984. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the ,parties i,e,, Mr. M. A. Riaz, counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that so far as the Charge No, 1, is concerned it is based upon the same facts on which a warning was given to the appellant, previously and was the subject-matter of the Appeal No, 455/1940 of 1982, before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this honourable Tribunal had already considered these facts and had set aside the warning in question vide its judgment, dated 14th February, 1983. Therefore, it was not open to the respondent No, 1, to rely upon the same warning for punishing the appellant. As regards the Charge No, 2, it has been submitted that although the charge was that the appellant had made false application and levelled baseless and incorrect charges against Mr. Qurban Muhammad, R. D. W., Union Council No, 24, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, as explained in para. 8 of the appeal, this application was sent by the appellant alongwith 33 other Tax-payers of the Union Council demanding an enquiry into the embezzlement of Government money. This application was sent by the D. M. L. A., Multan vide his letter, dated 31st May, 1982, F. I. A. Sent these papers to the Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption, Multan, who registered a case against Mr. Qurban Muhammad. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that these facts have not been categorically denied by the respondents in their written statement. It has, therefore, been pointed out that since the case had been registered against Mr. Qurban Muhammad, it is a sufficient proof that the charges made by the appellant were neither baseless nor incorrect.
' G. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondent and has argued that the appellant was in the habit of sending applications to the higher authorities direct and has thus committed breach of discipline and Government instructions. He is, therefore, guilty of misconduct and the punishment given to him may not be interfered.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties. The complete and chequered history of this case as explained in the earlier parts of this Judgment clearly indicates that the appellant has not been dealt with properly by the Departmental Authorities concerned. He has already suffered considerably at the hands of the Departmental Authorities who had made him a shuttle cock from one authority to another and even the Departmental Authorities had been passing his suspension/ dismissal orders at their whim and had been withdrawing the same. This proves beyond doubts that the Departmental Authorities had been inimical towards the appellant apparently due to the reasons that he has been bringing irregularities of the officers/officials of the Local Government Department to the notice of the higher authorities. The Departmental Authorities instead of taking these things in good sense, appear to have been offended. Lately the appellant has been punished for the following two charges :-
(a) Disturbing normal channels of correspondence by giving applications to the higher authorities.
(b) Sending baseless and incorrect applications against Mr. Qurban Muhammad, Secretary/Rural Development Works to the higher authorities.
' As far as the Charge No, 1 is concerned it has already been clinched by the Departmental Authorities and by this- Tribunal in case No, 455/1940 of 1982, decided on 14th February, 1983. We are inclined to accept the appellant's contention that it was not open to the Departmental Authorities to punish him on the basis of this very charge from which he had previously been exonerated by the Departmental Authorities concerned and confirmed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid judgment. As far as the Charge No, 2 is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant has taken definite stand in para. 8 of the appeal that on the basis of that application of the appellant, a case has been registered against Mr. Qurban Muhammad by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan. This statement has not been controverted by the respondents either in their written statements or by the learned District Attorney at the time of arguments before us. The same stand had been taken by the appellant in his written defence, dated 6th November, 1983, in reply to notice of personal hearing giving under rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 by the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Okara. As appellant's stand has been consistent and since it has not been rebutted by the Departmental Authorities it cannot be overlooked. Therefore, the charge that the appellant had made baseless and incorrect allegation against his colleague Mr. Qurban Muhammad is also not proved against the appellant.
8. However, we find that the appellant did submit application to the higher authorities against Mr. Qurban Muhammad directly, being in service. The service conduct rules were fully applicable to him and he should have as a Government servant, observed the same in letter and spirit, especially when from the very beginning grouse of the Departmental Authorities had been that he did not care for the observance of the Government Rules and instructions. Therefore, he is definitely guilty of violation of conduct rules in submitting application against Mr. Qurban Muhammad, direct to the higher authorities. However, this did not justify the extreme punishment given to him especially in the context/ circumstances of this case explained in the earlier parts of this judgment.
However, the appellant's behaviour in this respect cannot be allowed to go unnoticed.
9. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the punishment so awarded is modified/varied as follows :-
(i) Censure.
(ii) Stoppage of inurement for two years without future effect.
' The appellant is re-instated in service. The appeal is accepted to the above extent and the impugned orders are modified accordingly. However, the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall be treated as leave of kind due.